Posted on 10/19/2005 8:01:41 AM PDT by Alex Marko
It's within Israel, it SHOULD be Israeli.
Ping
The Islamic claim to the Temple Mount is very recent
Jerusalem's role as "The Third Holiest Site in Islam" in mainstream Islamic writings does not precede the 1930s. It was created by the Grand Mufti Haj Amin al Husseini
Most of the problems surrounding Jerusalem can be traced to two areas of dispute. One is the political area that asks Jerusalem to be the capital of both Israel and the nascent Palestine. The other and most contentious problem is the holiness of Temple Mount to both Judaism and Islam.
The role Jerusalem has in the Hebrew holy works is well known and not open to debate; however, there are varying opinions on the holiness of Jerusalem, specifically Temple Mount to Islam.
Many if not most opinions that counter Islam's claim point out the Jerusalem is not mentioned in the Quran and did not occupy any special role in Islam until recent political exigencies transformed Jerusalem into Islam's third holy site.
Jerusalem's role as "The Third Holiest Site in Islam" in mainstream Islamic writings does not precede the 1930s.
It was created by the Grand Mufti, Hajj Amin al Husseini. The Mufti knew that nationalist slogans alone would not succeed in uniting the masses against arriving Jewish refugees. He therefore turned the struggle into a religious conflict. He addressed the masses clearly, calling for a holy war. His battle cry was simple and comprehensive: "Down with the Infidels!" From the time Herbert Samuel appointed him to the position of Mufti, Haj Amin worked vigorously to raise Jerusalem's status as an Islamic holy center. He renovated the mosques on the Temple Mount, while conducting an unceasing campaign regarding the imminent Jewish "threat" to Moslem holy sites.
"The entire future of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could rest on this single issue alone.",
I stopped reading.
Anyone who believes that there is anything other than the destruction of the "Zionist entity" that will bring about "peace" in the Middle East, is either off his meds or needs to go back onto them.
Besides, I believe that we have already established, that the prevailing culture within the Arab world is one of violence and repression. And this writer actually believes that the Arabs are committed to "peace"? This guy is either a leftist idealogue in the mold of Noam Chomsky or he's just plain stupid. Either way, his premise is flawed.
You make the noose, then you pull it tight, Knot behind the left ear.........
The Moslem Claim to Jerusalem is False
There were no mosques in Jerusalem in 632CE when the Prophet Mohammed died... Jerusalem was [then] a Christian city
by Dr. Manfred R. Lehmann
The Moslem "claim" to Jerusalem is based on what is written in the Koran, which although Jerusalem is not mentioned even once, nevertheless talks (in Sura 17:1) of the "Furthest Mosque": "Glory be unto Allah who did take his servant for a journey at night from the Sacred Mosque to the Furthest Mosque." But is there any foundation to the Moslem argument that this "Furthest Mosque" (Al-Masujidi al-Aqtza) refers to what is today called the Aksa Mosque in Jerusalem? The answer is, none whatsoever.
In the days of Mohammed, who died in 632 of the Common Era, Jerusalem was a Christian city within the Byzantine Empire. Jerusalem was captured by Khalif Omar only in 638, six years after Mohammed's death. Throughout all this time there were only churches in Jerusalem, and a church stood on the Temple Mount, called the Church of Saint Mary of Justinian, built in the Byzantine architectural style.
The Aksa Mosque was built 20 years after the Dome of the Rock, which was built in 691-692 by Khalif Abd El Malik. The name "Omar Mosque" is therefore false. In or around 711, or about 80 years after Mohammed died, Malik's son, Abd El-Wahd - who ruled from 705-715 - reconstructed the Christian- Byzantine Church of St. Mary and converted it into a mosque. He left the structure as it was, a typical Byzantine "basilica" structure with a row of pillars on either side of the rectangular "ship" in the center. All he added was an onion-like dome on top of the building to make it look like a mosque. He then named it El-Aksa, so it would sound like the one mentioned in the Koran.
Therefore it is crystal clear that Mohammed could never have had this mosque in mind when he compiled the Koran, since it did not exist for another three generations after his death. Rather, as many scholars long ago established, it is logical that Mohammed intended the mosque in Mecca as the "Sacred Mosque," and the mosque in Medina as the "Furthest Mosque." So much for the Moslem claim based on the Aksa Mosque.
With this understood, it is no wonder that Mohammed issued a strict prohibition against facing Jerusalem in prayer, a practice that had been tolerated only for some months in order to lure Jews to convert to Islam. When that effort failed, Mohammed put an abrupt stop to it on February 12, 624. Jerusalem simply never held any sanctity for the Moslems themselves, but only for the Jews in their domain.
If you actually read on, you would see that they noted suicide bombings and israel justification for security concerns. Its actually an impartial article.
Anyone who believes the Arabs have any claim on Jerusalem should read Nehemiah 2 v.19-20.
Islam - taking other religion's holy sites and converting them into mosques for 1400 years...
Firstly, there is no earthly reason to assume by any logic that Israel will relinquish one centimeter of East Jerusalem for several reasons, the most important of which is religious significance. Security comes a very close 2nd. Under Jordanian rule (not Palestinian rule, a discussion all of it's own), Jews could not go to The Western Wall and pray there. There lies the rub. Israel has made it clear that they will not yield on Jerusalem. So the Arabs have their wedge issue. Note too, please, that when the Israelis unilaterally withdrew from Gaza, Abbas himself, said that the struggle will continue until statehood with Jerusalem as it's capital. You will notice that he did not say East Jerusalem, he said Jerusalem.
Secondly,by referring to the "so-called Geneva Accord", the writer tips his hand. The Geneva Accord was a Yossi Beilin inspired pipe dream, with no official standing. It is the far left's idea of a Middle Eastern Utopia. It means diddly as far as Arab/ Israeli negotiations are concerned.
Simply put, the simplest way for there to be peace in the Middle East, is for Hamas to be dismantled, the Saudis to stop providing resources (financial and otherwise)in aiding, abetting and promoting terror in Israel, and for Syria to be spanked. Without the removal of all three of those protagonists, there will never be peace.
Dont get me wrong, i support a unified jerusalem for an israeli capital, and by no means do i blame israel for any action it takes in doing so. I'm simply stating that Jerusaelems' status is the the biggest factor in the conflict. Of course you would not think its impartial, you side heavily on Israel's side.
Even more simply put, an even simpler way for there to be peace in the Middle East is for all Israeli's to leave and relocate to Columbus, Ohio.
Now, if you're going for realistic, I'm afraid neither of our plans will work.
BTTT
Sounds good to me. Let the only civilized nation in the region control its own capitol.
Israel capital will be a united Jerusalem, it is the "heart and soul" of israel. Moving is NOT an option. Tell the Palestinians to move.
Jerusalem is not even mentioned in the Koran. Any and all Palestinian claims are false.
Well, I thought you were looking for the simplest option. Weren't you?
They've already got two holy cities - why do they need a 3rd?
Yes, I support Israel unreservedly. From your comment, apparently so do you. But it's because I am a strong supporter of Israel (as you are) that I can't see that the article is impartial? Color me confused.
The fact that the author uses a false premise and quotes an agreement that isn't worth the paper is written on, shouldn't question the impartiality of the article? C'mon.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.